9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t only on the invoice - Manufacturer M/s Suraj has not supplied the goods to M/s Neo therefore there is no possibility of supplying of the goods by M/s Neo to the appellant - entire case was made out on the basis of statements of director and chairman of M/s Neo and M/s Suraj respectively and also of transporter - time limitation. HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the retraction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent : Shri Vinod Lukose, Superintendent (Authorized Representative). ORDER RAMESH NAIR The issue involved in the present case is the denial of cenvat credit on the ground that the appellant have not received the inputs and taken credit only on the invoice. The reason for which appellant have not received the inputs is that the Manufacturer M/s Suraj has not supplied the goods to M/s Neo therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ination. Accordingly the statements which are the sole evidence for deciding the case cannot be accepted. He further submits that the demand is for the period July 2012- Dec 2013 whereas the SCN was issued on 31.10.2017 a part of the demand i.e. for July 12- October 2013 is even beyond 5 years which in any case is not sustainable. 3. Shri Vinod Lukose, Learned Superintendent AR appearing on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olated the principles of natural justice. I also find that it is apparent from the records that demand for the period is July 2012- Dec 2013 SCN was issued on 31.10.2017 therefore the part of the demand i.e. July 2012- October 2013 is prima facie barred by limitation being the same is beyond 5 years. 5. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
